Latest Articles

​Milestones in Democratic Transition in the Arab World 1/1-28/2/2021.

​The study is premised on the assumption that the US-Iranian tensions under the Trump administration represents a new chapter in the crisis in the US-Iranian relationship. This extreme hostility was related to US domestic politics and the bordering on personal rivalry of President Trump with his predecessor, President Barack Obama, in domestic and foreign policy. One of the most important policy manifestations of this administrative divergence concerns the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, signed in 2015. Opposition to the Nuclear Agreement united Gulf players such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, who considered shared hostility towards Iran as a bridge to strengthen their relations with the US on the one hand; while also forming a strong front, in the presence of Israel, to weaken the Iranian regime without necessarily replacing it.

Despite the dire situation in Syria, the International Organization for Migration states that about one in ten Syrian refugees is returning home. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees predicts that hundreds of thousands of refugees may soon voluntarily return to their devastated homeland. The fear is that this will happen without any prior planning, especially since the Syrian crisis may be relatively unique in terms of its size and the difficulty of predicting its trajectories. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to identify the lessons learned from the experiences of refugee return, whether voluntary or forced, which illustrate the most important factors for ensuring the sustainable return of Syrian refugees. The study is based on an extensive literature review, consultations and interviews with experts and stakeholders, supported by the researchers' accumulated experience in the field of post-war reconstruction and refugee studies. The study does not aim to analyze the current political or military situation in Syria, or to evaluate any ongoing or planned political talks, nor does it evaluate any proposed political solution.

​The Muslim response to colonialism has varied country to country and region to region. The dawn of colonialism created ruptures in Muslim political reasoning, forcing them to find and reconfigure an Islamic response to the changing political realities. The Indian subcontinent never came under an Islamic Caliphate of the Umayyad or Abbasid Empires. Most military expansionist ambitions in India stemmed from the volatile Central Asian Khanates who played a major strategic role between the Caliphate and Indian subcontinent, preventing the Caliphate from controlling India directly and maintaining an advanced independent politics. This paper profiles the political context of Muslim political thought and its response to the rise of nation-state, which was shaped more of political realism, setting aside the Islamic vocabularies of Dar al Islam or Dar al Harb. This paper concludes that, the South Asian Muslim mind had accepted nation-state either in its composite or in a distinctively Muslim format which resulted in the two nation-states of India and Pakistan. Both formats have evolved within a strong Islamic context that challenges Pakistan's "Islamic credentials" against India.

​The study is premised on the assumption that the US-Iranian tensions under the Trump administration represents a new chapter in the crisis in the US-Iranian relationship. This extreme hostility was related to US domestic politics and the bordering on personal rivalry of President Trump with his predecessor, President Barack Obama, in domestic and foreign policy. One of the most important policy manifestations of this administrative divergence concerns the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, signed in 2015. Opposition to the Nuclear Agreement united Gulf players such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, who considered shared hostility towards Iran as a bridge to strengthen their relations with the US on the one hand; while also forming a strong front, in the presence of Israel, to weaken the Iranian regime without necessarily replacing it.

This paper presents Arab public opinion trends on the Palestinian issue, through data collected by the ACRPS-conducted Arab Opinion Index. It assesses whether Palestine is a pan-Arab issue or one that concerns Palestinians alone. It also evaluates Arab regional attitudes towards recognition of Israel and towards the positions and policies adopted by some international or regional powers towards Palestine. The paper demonstrates that Arab public opinion strongly leans towards dealing with Palestine on the basis that it is a pan-Arab issue, not specific to the Palestinian people alone. It also shows that public opinion in the region is almost unanimous (at a rate of 88%) in rejecting any national recognition of Israel and that the assessment of Arab public opinion of regional or international powers in the region is determined by their policies towards the Palestinian issue.

​Documents of Democratic Transition in the Arab World in Lebanon from December 2019 to January 2020.

This paper determines whether the steps taken by the state towards transitional justice in Mauritania are commensurate with the heavy legacy of human rights violations witnessed in the country. It also seeks to hold that experience accountable, in order to identify the reasons for its failure. The article concludes that although Mauritania is yet to erect a transitional justice system, the first signs of such justice appear to be closer to the model of compensatory justice taken by some African countries than to the punitive justice model adopted by many European and Latin American countries. However, this latter model is more effective, since punishment for such crimes is a guarantee that it is not important to repeat them.

International protection for internally displaced persons, who far exceed the number of refugees, has become a major issue in recent years. This is reflected in the international community's search for solutions, by providing them with internal humanitarian assistance so that they do not have to seek help beyond the borders of their states, affirming their right to remain in their country in security and dignity and not to become refugees. However, reality has shown that the international community's attention to the protection of internally displaced persons is not so much a humanitarian consideration as it is an inevitable consequence of state reservations to welcome refugees on their territory. European states in particular have attached urgency to protecting internally displaced persons arbitrarily to justify the closure of their borders to refugees.

Mercantilism presents itself as an explicit model of economic nationalism. Since its early application to the new protectionism, economic nationalism has theorized that economic activities must be subject to the maximization of the power of the state. This article aims to explain economic nationalism and track the evolution of its application, primarily to analyse its viability as a theory in the midst of economic globalization which threatens to bring about the de facto end of the state's interventionist economic system in a borderless world. As the article refutes the premise that globalization and nationalism are two sides of the same coin, national economies continue to be driven by disguised new forms of economic nationalism.